Pistorius's sentence lengthened to 13 years

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42107701

A pity they didn't make it a lot longer.

[Robbie]

You can't be serious. It's terrible.

[floo]

You can't be serious. It's terrible.

What is terrible is the fact that evil piece of dog dirt shot his girlfriend dead. I hope he is having a very hard time in prison.

[Robbie]

He thought she was a burglar. I believe him. The media wanted him to be found guilty of murder. He didn't stand a chance. However doubling his sentence is ridiculous and unjust. What do they want of this man, to commit suicide?

[floo]

He thought she was a burglar. I believe him. The media wanted him to be found guilty of murder. He didn't stand a chance. However doubling his sentence is ridiculous and unjust. What do they want of this man, to commit suicide?

I don't believe that lying turd for a second. Surely if the person you were sharing a bed with was missing and you heard someone in the bathroom the normal assumption to make is that they were using the facilities. No sane person would shoot first and ask questions later. Besides which, it appears Pistorius had a history of violence.

[Robbie]

Everything little thing was dragged up and used to crucify him. There are many people who believe he was innocent, just not enough at the end of the day. The very idea that he could be tried for the same crime twice is scandalous.

You go on believing the worst of everyone, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

[ProfessorDavey]

Everything little thing was dragged up and used to crucify him. There are many people who believe he was innocent, just not enough at the end of the day. The very idea that he could be tried for the same crime twice is scandalous.

You go on believing the worst of everyone, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think the issue now is the sentence rather than the issue of guilt or otherwise.

The court decided that he was guilty of murder - and that being the case the original sentence of just 6 years appears to be crazily lenient for someone guilty of murder. In fact even now, with his sentence increased to 15 years, he has receive the minimum sentence possible for murder.

If he is innocent then he should be in jail at all, if he is guilty of murder (as the court has found) then he should be serving a sentence that is consistent with that murder conviction. That is now the case (just) - it wasn't previously.

[floo]

Everything little thing was dragged up and used to crucify him. There are many people who believe he was innocent, just not enough at the end of the day. The very idea that he could be tried for the same crime twice is scandalous.

You go on believing the worst of everyone, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

So shooting at someone in a restaurant, as he did was a 'little thing' was it? Shooting through the sunroof of his car when having a temper tantrum was a 'little thing' was it? I wouldn't give that piece of scum the benefit of the doubt, when the evidence proves otherwise.

[Harrowby Hall]

So shooting at someone in a restaurant, as he did was a 'little thing' was it? Shooting through the sunroof of his car when having a temper tantrum was a 'little thing' was it? I wouldn't give that piece of scum the benefit of the doubt, when the evidence proves otherwise.

Floo

What he was reported to have done of other occasions is of NO relevance at all to his trial for the shooting of his girlfriend.

Were you a juror in a trial for murder and were found to have used information not raised in evidence at the trial to help convict the accused - then the trial would be declared a mistrial and you might even be found to be in contempt.

[Maeght]

I think he genuinely thought there was an intruder in the house and that he was actually protecting his girlfriend. The fact that he shot into a room through a door without knowing who was behind it means he is guilty but I think you are wrong in your opinion of him Floo.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think he genuinely thought there was an intruder in the house and that he was actually protecting his girlfriend. The fact that he shot into a room through a door without knowing who was behind it means he is guilty but I think you are wrong in your opinion of him Floo.

And on what basis do you come to that conclusion - were you in the court room for the whole period of the trial? Those who were came to a different conclusion, and on appeal his conviction was confirmed as murder.

I don't think any of us here have enough evidence to hand to be able to genuinely opine on whether he was guilty or innocent, or if guilty whether that was for murder or manslaughter - we simply don't have enough information.

But that isn't the issue here - the issue today is given that he has been convicted of murder (that is simply a statement of fact) whether a sentence of 6 years is appropriate, given that the minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years. I cannot see how anyone can coe to any other conclusion than to say it wasn't appropriate and that the decision today has rectified that by giving him the minimum sentence allowed in the case of someone convicted of murder (which he has been).

[Robbie]

That's what I think. The original trial in which he was guilty of manslaughter should have stood. I don't know what he can do now about the appalling increase in sentence. None of it brings poor Reeva back to her family. However not one of us was there.

What a dreadful waste of two lives.

[Maeght]

And on what basis do you come to that conclusion - were you in the court room for the whole period of the trial? Those who were came to a different conclusion, and on appeal his conviction was confirmed as murder.

I don't think any of us here have enough evidence to hand to be able to genuinely opine on whether he was guilty or innocent, or if guilty whether that was for murder or manslaughter - we simply don't have enough information.

But that isn't the issue here - the issue today is given that he has been convicted of murder (that is simply a statement of fact) whether a sentence of 6 years is appropriate, given that the minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years. I cannot see how anyone can coe to any other conclusion than to say it wasn't appropriate and that the decision today has rectified that by giving him the minimum sentence allowed in the case of someone convicted of murder (which he has been).

I expressed my opinion based on the evidence I saw from the court case and other sources. You are correct in what you say which is why I have not ranted and raved or expressed a strong view on the sentence but simply expressed my opinion that he didn't intend to kill Reeva. I could be wrong. Could the court have been wrong?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't know what he can do now about the appalling increase in sentence.

Justify that statement please, specifically the bit emphasised.

He has been convicted or murder (that is a fact).

The minimum sentence for murder in South Africa is 15 years (that is also a fact)

His sentence has been reviewed and he has now received the minimum sentence that is possible for a murder conviction in South Africa of 15 years (he will serve a further 13 years as the sentence takes account of time already served).

In what way is that 'appalling' - don't forget that even now he has received the most lenient sentence possible for the crime that he has been convicted of.

[ProfessorDavey]

Could the court have been wrong?

Yes, of course they could. Which is why there is an appeals process.

But the point is that until or unless his conviction for murder is overturned on appeal (or reduced to manslaughter) then he should receive a sentence appropriate to his conviction for murder. Prior to today he hadn't, today that has been rectified and he has received the minimum sentence possible under South African law for murder.

[Maeght]

Yes, of course they could. Which is why there is an appeals process.

But the point is that until or unless his conviction for murder is overturned on appeal (or reduced to manslaughter) then he should receive a sentence appropriate to his conviction for murder. Prior to today he hadn't, today that has been rectified and he has received the minimum sentence possible under South African law for murder.

Agreed. I haven't commented on the sentence though just expressed my personaly opinion - which is all it is.

[jeremyp]

You can't be serious. It's terrible.

He murdered his girlfriend. He's lucky not to be serving a life sentence.

[jeremyp]

Floo

What he was reported to have done of other occasions is of NO relevance at all to his trial for the shooting of his girlfriend.

Were you a juror in a trial for murder and were found to have used information not raised in evidence at the trial to help convict the accused - then the trial would be declared a mistrial and you might even be found to be in contempt.

No, but it is of relevance when considering the sentence.

[jeremyp]

That's what I think. The original trial in which he was guilty of manslaughter should have stood. I don't know what he can do now about the appalling increase in sentence. None of it brings poor Reeva back to her family. However not one of us was there.

What a dreadful waste of two lives.

He knew there was somebody behind the door and he shot through the door. The identity of the person is irrelevant - it's still murder.

[ProfessorDavey]

You can't be serious. It's terrible.

It is the most lenient sentence he could possibly have received given the fact that he has been convicted of murder.

[Rhiannon]

I don’t have a strong opinion either way, but there’s this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/07/oscar-pistorius-sentence-an-homage-to-celebrity-and-white-privilege

[floo]

He knew there was somebody behind the door and he shot through the door. The identity of the person is irrelevant - it's still murder.

Exactly. He would be tried for murder here in the UK, even if he had shot a burglar.

[Rhiannon]

Just to say that it worries me when sympathies lie so strongly with a killer, intentional or otherwise. Some people are very good at manipulating sympathy. This may or may not be the case here but the evidence that it was accidental didn’t hold up, hence the reason this has happened.

[Harrowby Hall]

No, but it is of relevance when considering the sentence.

I do not dispute this. But it cannot be considered to be evidence of guilt - which appears to be Floo's view.

As to the actual verdict of "Guilty" - I have no quarrel.

[floo]

Just to say that it worries me when sympathies lie so strongly with a killer, intentional or otherwise. Some people are very good at manipulating sympathy. This may or may not be the case here but the evidence that it was accidental didn’t hold up, hence the reason this has happened.

I think Pistorius thought he would get away with it, thank goodness he hasn't.